In a move to counter accusations of enabling textbook piracy, Google has requested a Manhattan federal judge to dismiss claims that it facilitated the sale of pirated books through its advertising platform. The tech giant argues it neither controls nor profits directly from the alleged copyright infringements.

Google IP Suit Over Pirated Books : Legal Battle Escalates

The lawsuit, filed in June by prominent textbook publishers Cengage Learning Inc., Macmillan Learning, Macmillan Holdings LLC, Elsevier Inc., Elsevier BV, and McGraw Hill LLC, alleges that Google "knowingly facilitated and profited from the sale of infringing works" through ads linked to pirate websites. The publishers claim that Google’s advertising platform directed users to these unauthorized sites, benefiting financially from the traffic.

Google's Defense

In a motion to dismiss the case filed Monday, Google countered that it does not supervise or control the content on the websites where pirated textbooks are sold. The company argues that the publishers have failed to provide evidence that Google has direct oversight of these infringing sites or that it benefits financially from the alleged piracy.

"To prove vicarious copyright infringement, plaintiffs must demonstrate that Google has the right and ability to control the alleged infringement and has a financial interest in it," Google stated in its motion. The tech giant pointed out that the publishers have not shown that Google controls the sale of unauthorized copies or that it could close down the pirate websites.

Google IP Suit Over Pirated Books : Arguments on Financial Gains

Google further contested the claim that it profits from the alleged piracy. The company maintains that it earns revenue from ad clicks, not from sales of pirated textbooks. "Plaintiffs do not claim that Google earns a cut of each infringing textbook sale," the motion read. "Google’s revenue comes from clicks on ads, whether those ads direct users to legitimate products or not."

Trademark Infringement and New York Law

In addition, Google criticized the publishers for employing a "kitchen-sink pleading strategy," arguing that their claims of direct trademark infringement are unfounded. Courts have generally ruled that being a "mere facilitator of sales" does not constitute direct trademark infringement. Furthermore, Google challenged the publishers' claims under New York General Business Law, stating they had not proven that the ad space provided caused public harm or was misleading.

Legal Representation and Next Steps

Counsel for both parties had not responded to requests for comment as of Tuesday. The publishers are represented by Matthew Oppenheim, Kevin Lindsey, Michele Murphy of Oppenheim + Zebrak LLP, and Jeffrey Kane of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. Google’s defense team includes Allison Stillman, Joseph Wetzel, Sarah Tomkowiak, and Sarang Damle from Latham & Watkins LLP.